The Gospel Of Mark In A Nutshell (mark 1:1)

The Gospel of Mark in a nutshell

This gospel is a phenomenal short story about Israel’s God, Israel’s King and Israel’s glorious kingdom. The very first sentence of the Gospel of Mark, whether functioning as a title of the work or introducing the gospel to the hearer, reads as follows: “Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ.”

The first noun is archei (Ἀρχὴ) from which we get our English “arch-”. This word is used as in arch-enemy or archbishop and simply means first, head, or beginning; but there is another interesting way to translate this word, and that is as ruler or as someone in charge. The last meaning fits very well into the overall kingship and power motif of the Gospel of Mark. However, it is very difficult to see how it could be translated this way, so translate it as “beginning” just as others do.

The second word is euvangelion (seen here as εὐαγγελίο) is a compound word that combines two Greek words “good” and “message”, rightfully forming our English word Gospel or Good News. This word, even though written in Koine Greek, invokes an ancient Israelite (Biblical) idea that the prophet Isaiah expressed. As we will see, the Gospel of Mark is steeped in the Israelite prophetic tradition. In Isaiah 52:7-10 we read:

How lovely on the mountains
Are the feet of him who brings good news,
Who announces peace
And brings good news of happiness,
Who announces salvation,
And says to Zion, “Your God reigns!”
Listen! Your watchmen lift up their voices,
They shout joyfully together;
For they will see with their own eyes
When the Lord restores Zion.
Break forth, shout joyfully together,
You waste places of Jerusalem;
For the Lord has comforted His people,
He has redeemed Jerusalem.
10 The Lord has bared His holy arm
In the sight of all the nations,
That all the ends of the earth may see
The salvation of our God.

The picture here is as follows – messengers from the field of battle run to Israel’s capital city to announce that Israel’s God and Israel’s army have defeated their enemies. The Lord God fought on behalf of Israel and showed the nations of the world that He is King, committed to the ultimate well-being of His people – Israel. The watchmen, standing on the walls of Jerusalem, are charged with providing an early warning about anything they see from afar. They first see jubilant faces of the messengers and are charged to begin announcing this joy inside the city of God.

Now let us talk about the name Jesus. The proper English name “Jesus” in the New Testament comes to us from Greek, via Latin and German. Greek  Ἰησοῦς is a Judeo Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Joshua, coming into the New Testament directly from the Judeo-Greek document called the Septuagint (LXX). The Septuagint uses the Greek name ᾽Ιησοῦς to translate the Old Testament name “Joshua” and its later shorter version Yeshua (Neh.8:17: 1Chron.24:11). (Any suggestion that the name Jesus has pagan roots and is somehow connected with Zeus has no basis what so ever).

As we turn our attention to the next word, we come to the word Christ. It was the above-mentioned Judeo-Greek Septuagint that translated the word Messiah (מָשִׁיחַ) with the word Christ (Χριστός). In Greek it means the anointed one. Remember that this translation was done before Jesus lived by Jews and not by Greeks. This means that there is nothing particularly non-Jewish about referring to Jesus as Messiah, Moshiach or as Christ.

Additionally, the Anointed one (Moshiah in Hebrew and Christos in Greek) was a concept that combines three crucial functions – that of prophet, priest and king. The Gospel of Mark announces Jesus as someone who is successfully fulfilling all three of these offices. So far, every concept that is considered in this verse was steeped in the idea of Israelite kingship.

The Gospel continues with one more crucially important statement about who Jesus is. From the outset, it calls him the Son of God. Demons and a Roman centurion will both call Jesus the Son of God as we will later see. The concept of the Son of God in the minds of the ancients (Jewish or otherwise) was essentially a significant royal figure. When ancient kings were crowned, they were considered to have become the sons of gods or of a god. Israel’s idea about its own kings was no different. Israel’s lawful king at the time of coronation would also become a Son of God as we can see from Psalm 2. There we read King David speaking:

אֲסַפְּרָ֗ה אֶֽ֫ל חֹ֥ק יְֽהוָ֗ה אָמַ֘ר אֵלַ֥י בְּנִ֥י אַ֑תָּה אֲ֝נִ֗י הַיּ֥וֹם יְלִדְתִּֽיךָ׃

“I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.”

It is curious that another term, the Son of Man, seems to play an even more central role in this Gospel (it is used 10 times); while the term Son of God is used only three times in the entire Gospel. There is a possibility that this phrase (the Son of God) was in the original gospel manuscript, but we also have a number of manuscripts that do not contain this last phrase. In these manuscripts, everything stops at the declaration of Jesus as the Messiah. Whether or not the original had or did not have this phrase, nothing is changed. Jesus is set forth as the Anointed one. What does it all mean? We will soon find out.

 

Prayer

Oh, God, help us to understand what all it means to have Jesus as

The King of over us and align our lives with this fact.

Amen.

About the author

Dr. Eli Lizorkin-EyzenbergTo secure your spot in our new course “The Jewish Background of New Testament” - CLICK HERE NOW

You might also be interested in:

Abraham In Egypt (lech Lecha...

By Julia Blum

Lech Lecha – God’s...

By Julia Blum

Join the conversation (25 comments)

Leave a Reply

  1. gustavo vargas angel

    Charles van den Berg:
    We are ok; Jesus= Joshua= saviors; however, their jobs were differents but both of them, leading to release the people to some kind of freedom: One phisical(Joshua), other spiritual(Jesus), in any case, if we believe, we are free to worship G-d and Jesus, no matter where from on earth. Best regards.

  2. Bernard

    In my view, this is neither a translation or an interpretation since there is no word Jesus in English except for Jesus of the bible. Is it because it was difficult for the interpreters/translators to pronounce Yeshua of the NT but could do the OT one. Just curious

  3. Charles van den Berg

    So Jesus is an equivalent for Joshua . Therefor, in my opinion , this is a translation. Not an interpretation. Not even an interpretive translation. Best regards.

  4. gustavo vargas angel

    Charles van den Berg:
    Hi, ¡ Although the translation from hebrew to greek is done by jews who did speakyou may see greek, is also a matter of interpretation, because no at all/each language do exists the same word for the same thing , but one which” looks like” the one translated, so you can see at each language you could know. Best regards.

    1. Charles van den Berg

      gustavo vargas angel:

      Translation is to take over. Interpreting is trying to understand. In translating you looking for an equivalent . If there is no equivalent then you need to describe the text with other words. At that time in a translation process , there’s an interpretation moment. Joshua and Jesus both mean “A savior; a deliverer.”

  5. John Walker

    I have spent fifteen minutes with you and your sister sites so I may be wrong to comment so soon. I am an unlearned and unlettered student of The Bible, Caballa, I Ching, etc, etc. i was hoping for a definition of Christ that whould clarify statements such as “Christ in you – the hope of glory; first born of every creature” – The Atman or someth

  6. gustavo vargas angel

    Bernard: Surely you know the real name of Jesus: Emmanuel(God with us), and I think that the different name is because was necessary a differentiation with Joshua( Yeshua,also).

  7. Bernard

    Hi all
    Thank for your prompt answers. However, I still don’t understand how one would translate the name Joshua to become Jesus. They already had the book of Joshua in place and other people who were called Joshua in the Old Testament why didn’t they change those to Jesus too? What necessitated this change. Was it a translation or interpretation?

    1. Charles van den Berg

      Hi Bernard! It is taken verbatim from the Septuagint, the translation of the Tanakh into Greek for Greek-speaking Jews in 70 BC. So it is no interpretation, but tranlation.

  8. Alrick

    I love this very much. I am going to enjoy this.

  9. gustavo vargas angel

    Dear Bernard:
    I think that nothing has been loss, the matter is that Joshua and Jesus means the same thing: “Saviour”(according some readings I had). The different writting means nothing.

  10. Jeraldine Skinner

    Mr. Hadebe.
    A great deal of time name changes occur as a result of multiple translations from various languages to various languages.

  11. Bernard Hadebe

    Thank you very much Dr Eli, powerful staff. However, I am still struggling to understand how the name Joshua became Jesus in English when we already have the book of Joshua in English. What went wrong?

  12. Judy Powell

    Thank You I’m forever Grateful for this opportunity to study under You Dr. Eli Lizorkin Eyzenberg. May Almighty God ,s Hand Of Blessing Be Upon You , and Keep You n His Face Shine upon You. May You alway Know Gods Grace. Thank You Judy

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      I am too grateful for the opportunity and humbled by your kind words.

  13. Pauline

    Thank you for this. I am currently learning Koine Greek, and our tutor has started us translating the Gospel according to Mark. Your comments fit in perfectly and provide further insight. Really appreciate this.

  14. Drs. Charles van den Berg

    Mentioned or acting as:
    Moses as the prophet ( Deut. 18:15-18), the king (Deut. 33:4-5) ,and the priest (Deut. 33:8-9 ).
    David as the prophet (Acts 2:29-30), the king (2 Sam. 2:4; 5:1-3 ), the priest (2 Sam. 6:14-18)
    Jesus Christ as the Prophet (Mat. 3:22-26), the King (Rev. 19:16), The Priest (Hebr. 7:1-14)

  15. Drs. Charles van den Berg

    Moses, David and Jesus bore all three the name The Anointed of the Lord.”
    All three were anointed with the anointing of a prophet, a king and a priest.
    Although the fact of the anointing isn’t mentioned everywhere they acted as prophet, priest and king.

  16. gustavo vargas angel

    Guillermo: I have seen your link,and read a whole amount of words which means nothing to me(respectfully) and I think to others; Please, give me some light or more info. Best for you

  17. Drs. Charles van den Berg

    So Mark (and John : John 1:41) placed Jesus is in the line of the kings of Israel, before the division of the kingdom. So they appointed him King over ALL Israel.

  18. Drs. Charles van den Berg

    The term “His annointed” is first used by Hannah , concerning Samuel (1 Sam. 1:10). King Saul (A) and Kind David (B) and the coming Messiah(C) is spoken of as “The Lord’s Anointed”(A: 1 Sam. 24:6.10; 26:9.11.23; 2 Sam. 1:14.16).(B: 2Sam. 19:21; 2 Chronicles 6:42; Ps. 20:6; 89:21) (C: Ps. 2:2; Dan. 9:25.26).

  19. gustavo vargas angel

    Dear Dr.:
    I really think that you should not wait just another minute to release the next section. You should have done, because I cant wait anymore! Best for you.

  20. Timoteo Arao

    Really i have already started studying more seriously the Gospel of Mark. The method you are using is suitable for me. Dr Eli thank you so much for your excellent teaching and guidance.

  21. Jeraldine Skinner

    Shalom Dr. Eli,

    I quite enjoyed your your etymological study on five nouns found in Mark 1:1 .
    It is a pleasure to read such a fluid style of writing. Thanks for the masterful work.
    Jeraldine Skinner

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Thank you, Jeraldine for your encouragement. I can’t wait to release the next section.